Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Maddox, 825 N.W.2d 140.

34 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Andrew Gerald Bloom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
to have the assistance of counsel in [their] defense.’” (first and third alterations in original) (quoting Minn. Const. art. I, § 6); see also id.
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Tracy Major Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The denial of the right to counsel is a structural error that does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Markhel D’John Harris-Franklin Minn. Ct. App. 2025
8 waive his right to counsel.” State v. Maddox
State of Minnesota v. Charles Todd Bragg Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although criminal defendants enjoy the right to counsel at “critical stages of the proceedings,” (quotation omitted), the right to counsel extends only “for one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding,” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Duwayne Harms Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A defendant may waive his right to counsel if the defendant ’s waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent.” State v. Maddox , (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Lee Gant Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-95 (Minn. 2019) (reasoning that the supreme court has held that the right to counsel “applies at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution” (quotation omitted)); 146 (Minn. App. 2013) (citing first Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358 (1977); aff’d, ) (reasoning that the United States Supreme Court has recognized sentencing as a critical stage in a criminal proceeding and 7 ho
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Willy Dixon Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“A defendant is entitled to a new trial when the absence of a record of a defendant’s waiver of counsel renders it impossible to determine upon appellate review whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent.” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Chad Lawrance Bachmeier Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Randip E. Satoskar Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3 (2018), and has a corresponding right to be represented by counsel at that hearing
State of Minnesota v. Dale Eugene McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Dakin Adam Braddick Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kyle Lawrence Shepperson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
that does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.” State v. Maddox , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cheryl Oby Albert Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The right to trial counsel extends into every critical stage of the proceeding, which are those trial-like confrontations where an attorney could assist the defendant with legal problems or in “meeting [her] adversary.” State v. Maddox , (quoting Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191, 212 n.16, 128 S. Ct. 2578, 2591 n.16 (2008)).
State of Minnesota v. TreJuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 336; see also State v. Maddox , 46 (Minn. 2 The record on appeal is unclear as to the facts relied upon by the district court to cancel the restitution hearing.
Brittany Ann Vacko v. State of Minnesota (A18-2038), Eric Joseph Vacko, vs. State of Minnesota (A18-2039) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Gardner v. Florida , 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1205 (1977); -46 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Chaquetta Alicia Merie Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1205 (1977)).
State of Minnesota v. Hiram Abdul Langston Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(applying rule 5.04 to a restitution hearing); (applying rule 5.04 to a probation -revocation hearing).
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(d 136, 144 n.6 (Minn. 2012)); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1205 (1977).
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] defendant who fails to timely challenge restitution under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b), may not challenge restitution in a postconviction-relief petition.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Robert Winsor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Robert Winsor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen 871 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen 871 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2015
Andersen’s in which the court of appeals held that a defendant has the right to counsel at a restitution hearing.
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[A] defendant who fails to timely challenge restitution under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b), may not challenge restitution in a postconviction-relief petition.”).
Jolonda Rae Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jolonda Rae Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Despite the untimeliness, appellant argues that “it was erroneous for the district court to find that [appellant’s] request for an evidentiary hearing was untimely, given that it failed to appoint counsel for [appellant] at this crucial stage of sentencing.” While it is true that there is a right to counsel at a contested restitution hearing, appellant cites no authority that extends this right to the district court’s issuance of an order awarding restitution.